KALW’s Holly Kernan interviews David Weir, co-founder of the Center for Investigative Reporting who blogs about the changing media landscape and also writes about media and technology for 7×7 Magazine, of which he was the founding editor. Weir began the interview by talking about what the loss of local media means for news consumers.

* * *

DAVID WEIR: Well, it certainly means that we’re getting less local coverage from the traditional channels than we used to get it from. And it’s meant we’ve lost the voices of a lot of experienced journalists who simply are no longer part of the public discourse.

Certainly one big trend has been the collapse of newspapers. And, you know … there’s no more dramatic way to visualize this than to visit the old newsroom of the San Francisco Chronicle, for instance, or the San Jose Mercury News.

KERNAN: What does it look like when you go in?

WEIR: I mean, the Mercury News gives me the creeps because you go to the old newsroom, which was a huge room, and it’s stacked floor to ceiling with boxes, desks, and chairs, and it just looks like the last reporter was told to turn out the lights.

And then you find the few reporters who are left are crushed into a small room elsewhere in the plant. And then there are big, empty hallways where you can hear your own echo as you go through. And finally, if you go up a couple floors, there’s more activity and it’s all start-ups, tech start-ups. It has nothing to do with, very little to do with the news business.

KERNAN: So speaking of the San Jose Mercury News, what was your reaction to the Bay Area News Group’s consolidation and cuts?

WEIR: I mean, it’s the same one I’ve had every time it happens. I think it’s a tragedy, but at this point, I think it’s inevitable. One of the aspects of it that I hope they reconsider is taking the names of the papers off of their logos. So the Oakland Tribune becomes, what, the East Bay Tribune, or something? And the Contra Costa Times becomes the Something Times. I think this generic approach probably loses a lot of the history and a lot of the connection that people have with those outlets.

KERNAN: Well, so what do you think a newspaper actually means to a community?

WEIR: You know, I think if newspapers had done a better job of asking that question about 20 years ago, they would be in better shape today. And I’ll tell you why. I can’t think of any newspaper in the U.S. that really integrated itself with its community. They covered communities, but they didn’t become involved with communities the way, like a public radio station does.

There’s a newspaper group in Mexico that shows how things would be better had they done that. It’s called La Reforma. And that newspaper group, which is the largest and most successful in Mexico, has for a long time, had a policy of inviting members of the public onto an advisory panel to help them review the news and cover the community better.

When the newspaper faced a crisis of moving its content online, 80% of its subscribers agreed to pay for its content online because they felt so invested in that newspaper. They knew how news is created. They knew who to call when they had a story or they ever had an issue. And the newspaper is incredibly responsive. I can’t think of American newspapers that act like that.

KERNAN: Except, a lot of ethnic media outlets. A lot of non-English language newspapers, which are closer to their communities.

WEIR: Absolutely, and those are – well some of them are struggling because of the economic situation. But in terms of, as vibrant organizations, you’re exactly right. The ethnic, minority press, the multi-national presses and, you know, a lot of local and neighborhood newspapers are doing pretty well, too, in this. But I was really talking about the big metros.

KERNAN: So we know that newspapers are hemorrhaging reporters. Most commercial media outlets are as well. What do you think we’re losing? What’s at stake for, kind of, democratic institutions for watchdog functions of journalists?

WEIR: Well, you know one of the reasons I co-founded the Center for Investigative Reporting 34 years ago now, was that the watchdog function itself was at risk even in those decades in the traditional press. We don’t want to romanticize the past too much. I mean, there wasn’t a lot of real important investigative reporting that the big metro papers around here did. I think you could count them on the fingers of one hand when it really comes to important public policy questions. So it’s always been a problem.

KERNAN: Well, for example, let me just give some props. I think the San Francisco Chronicle has been doing a great job in covering the San Bruno explosion and really shining a light on what happened there.

WEIR: That’s true. And that’s with diminished resources. So you’re very right that it can be done and it is done. They still have very good reporters on staff and they obviously have an editorial commitment to follow that story.

But I think that’s the exception, not the rule. And I think we’re losing coverage of local city meetings and commissions. We’re not finding out about things that are going on at City Hall or in the courts. And it’s not just say in San Francisco, but in many of the communities around the Bay Area there’s very little local coverage. And so people are losing that ability to stay in touch with the essentials of their public life that they’ve always relied on the press to give them.

Now that said, there are increasing number of hyper-local outlets, like Mission Local and Berkeleyside in Berkeley and those groups. There’s also a lot of bloggers. People like me who blog and try to keep people informed that way. There are strings of sights owned by companies like AOL that are trying to provide local coverage.

KERNAN: Patch, although that does not seem to be much of a success in terms of luring readers.

WEIR: Yeah, something about their model isn’t working. But these are all efforts – and then you have companies like Fwix, which is a hyper-local aggregator, and I’m an advisor there, by the way, I should say.

There’s a company I just wrote about last week called Blockboard, which basically is a way for people to get involved in civic ventures in their neighborhood. And it’s a mobile way to connect and they have a button you can immediately contact the city, for instance, with your iPhone. Take a picture of graffiti and say, “Please clean this up.” And it gets logged officially by the city, instantaneously through this service.

So there’s a lot of efforts underway to fill the gap and I’m not at all pessimistic that eventually we will have a new compact between those of us that are disclosing and covering the news and trying to investigate the news, and the citizenry that can act with that information.

KERNAN: Yeah, and I’m pretty confident about that, too. I just don’t know what will be lost in the process and how long that will take. And I think there’s so many interesting experiments going on. One of the things though that I keep hearing in all these forums is: What is the business model? What is the business model? And I don’t know that there is necessarily a business model for certain types of public interest journalism. What do you think?

WEIR: You’re right in identifying that there’s always been a conflict with serious public-spirited journalism and money. First of all, it costs a lot to do the work well. It takes a long time. It requires expertise. Secondly, who wants to pay for that?

KERNAN: Right, is PG&E going to fund the investigation on the San Bruno blast? I don’t think so.

WEIR: I don’t think so either. But you know, it’s interesting because in some ways the news business is coming toward the public radio and broadcasting model. After all, in the public broadcasting model, you have multiple revenue streams, if you think about it as a business. You’ve got individuals. You’ve got foundation grants. You might have some underwriting. And you might get some small amount of government funding. But these all represent different buckets you can turn to, to try to diversify the funding of the station.

KERNAN: Well, and as you said, there’s a relationship there that this is something we do together.

WEIR: That’s the important part.

KERNAN: That you’re not a consumer. You’re a partner.

WEIR: That’s right. It’s interactive. You know, there’s so much buzz about interactive media. But interactive media has always been possible with the public radio stations of the world. Because the public is invited to be part of the situation.

KERNAN: You’ve got to admit, it’s ridiculous and ironic that the public radio model would be the survivor.

WEIR: You know, it may be ironic. I’m glad it’s not ridiculous though because I think that it’s the old thing about the turtle and the hare. So public radio and public broadcasting has just kind of gone on at an even pace, much slower than some of these hyperactive business models that come and go so fast we can’t even remember what they were a year later.

But I think the important point here is it’s the involvement with the community. It’s the support of the community. And it’s interacting with the community that really sustains this kind of effort. And that’s what’s been missing from most media. Frankly, traditionally, they’ve been commercial, private-sector things driven by the bottom line, and not really all that concerned about their social and public purpose.

KERNAN: Alright, so what are some of the new start-ups, technologies, local journalism ventures that make you excited for the future?

WEIR: Well, the first thing I would say is the wave of innovation that’s happening right now is unprecedented. So we’ve had other technology booms in San Francisco. But this thing, it doesn’t even have a name. It’s huge. And it’s coming from all angles.

It’s driven by local, GPS-based data. Social, the social-media phenomenon has not yet crested. Mobile, mobile platforms are incredibly important, and with the tablet, you have a brand new reading device that’s emerging. And in a way, the smart phones and the tablets are just like books, newspapers and magazines. They’re all mobile devices. And that mobility is critical.

So I’m encouraged by tools that people are using on these devices. I mean, there’s some interesting things like Storify, you may have seen, that allows journalists to draw in social media, Facebook posts and Tweet seamlessly right into her story, and then distribute it back out over social media, and follow as it goes and morphs throughout the world, including again, people in your story. And when you quote them, they re-post the story and it goes viral. That’s a really interesting model.

But when it comes right down to the real thing – you’re asking about news in our community and media – I’m just saying we’re in for a rough ride. We haven’t seen the last of those 8% layoff announcements or consolidations or closings.

You have to expect more media disruption for the coming decade and I hope that some of the new technological approaches get adapted by people with serious purpose in serving our communities with news and journalism, and then we’ll find solutions. I wouldn’t count traditional media outlets out. I think they just have to learn to adapt and sort of, you know, preps become more entrepreneurial in their corporate culture.